Civil Unions And Constitutionalists Of Convenience

Today’s Courier Herald Column:

Modern day politics has bred a litany of cafeteria constitutionalists.  Whether championing freedoms of speech, gun rights, religion, or using the commerce clause to excuse any overreach of federal powers, modern day constitutional scholars seem as good at picking and choosing select passages from the document as others do in selecting limited passages from the bible to justify their positions.

The tenth amendment has become the favorite highlight reel for many Republicans as of late.  It is often used to reject the overreach of federal powers and invoke state sovereignty on issues where the federal government may have overstepped.  It reads as such:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The people of North Georgia were quite fond of quoting this amendment during the four contests held in 2010 for Congressman from the 9th district, all of which elected Tom Graves.  Courtesy of redistricting, Graves’ district has been moved a bit to the West, and there is an open seat in Georgia’s 9th.  A runoff is now underway between media personality Martha Zoller and State Representative Doug Collins, both of Hall County.  A recent poll shows the two in a close race, with Zoller leading at the upper end of the margin of error.

An unfortunate turn of events in recent GOP primaries is that when a race is close, divisive social issues often trump the issues on which that elected official will likely be able to impact through their votes.  Policy is thrown out the window in lieu of establishing holier than thou ground on the issues of gay rights, stopping illegal immigration, or halting the spread of shria law which many seem to think is ruining their everyday life.   Campaigns that should be about visions of the future are reduced to preying on root fears of often mythical problems.  Such is the current state of the race in Georgia 9.

Doug Collins released a video Tuesday via campaign email showing clips of Zoller stating affirmative support for civil unions.  Zoller responded with customary denials, claiming the various references were “out of context”.  An email circulated Wednesday by Zoller’s campaign claims Zoller does not support civil unions and Collins’ research is flawed.

Civil Unions are what conservatives have often offered as an alternative solution to gay marriage.  The distinction is often that marriage is a religious bond, despite that it is also a legal ceremony that is routinely performed without the benefit of clergy.  Regardless, there is nothing religious about civil unions or domestic partnerships.  They are contracts between two adults.

While the subject of civil unions and gay marriage remains sharply divided (see the recent Chick Fil A controversy for any needed proof), the question of the tenth amendment should be asked when either candidate choses to bring this topic up.  Both are running for a federal office.  Civil unions, unlike the Defense of Marriage Act, is not suggested as a constitutional amendment.  Thus, it is not a federal issue.  It is a subject reserved for either the states, or more properly, for the people.

No one in congress should be setting an agenda to stop two adults from entering into a binding civil contract.  It’s not the proper role of the federal government.

It is hard to figure out which candidate to be more disappointed in with this exchange.  Collins, running slightly behind, is attempting to bait evangelical conservatives by pitting a voting majority in his district against a small minority by obfuscating an issue and its proper federal role (or non-role).  Zoller’s response, equally disappointing, is to pretend she did not mean what she clearly said on multiple occasions not so long ago.

At the end of the day, the losers are the voters of the 9th Congressional district who are able to recite the 10th Amendment with little coaxing.  Unless, of course, these voters really only like the 10th Amendment when it’s convenient.

103 comments

  1. Subnuke98 says:

    The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution does matter. DOMA is unconstitutional. However, the state of Georgia DOES make constitutional that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is sad that neither candidate stated that. Don’t just throw around DOMA or the 10th Amendment and that is final, you must be able to state who is the final say on those matters. The 10th Amendment says the States or the people, so the state of Georgia has spoken.

    • John Konop says:

      You are right………….

      U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa Bryant, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled on Tuesday that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in unconstitutional.

      ….DOMA, Bryant ruled “fails to pass constitutional muster under even the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny.” From the ruling:

      …..In sum, having considered the purported rational bases proffered by both BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational relationship to Section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision. The provision therefore violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution………

      http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/bush_appointee_rules_doma_unconstitutional.php

      • caroline says:

        What I wonder is what is going to happen when DOMA is overturned. Most legal scholars seem to think it’s going to happen. I mean if you say gay marriage isn’t legal here in GA because someone got married in MA does that mean that my friends who are a straight couple are no longer married under GA law?

        Loving vs. Virginia overturned the banning of interracial marriage laws in states. I would think that DOMA might do something similar w/r/t gay marriage.

        • John Konop says:

          That is why I laughing about people who claimed to be strict constitutionalist and support DOMA. This is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment. You would have to be an activist/zealot judge to see it any other way. That is why legal scholars from the right and left have come to the same conclusion. This law is very dangerous……………… Ironically, it was very religious people that pushed for even further protection ie separation from church and state. The religious people feared a state that would support one religion over another. Some of our friends who claim to be strict constitutionalist need to read a few history books.

          • caroline says:

            Yes, I just had a similar conversation with a friend. She’s one of the ones that buys into the Sharia Law myth. I said well, if you’re so concerned about “Sharia Law” then you definitely should be for separation of church and state. She says there’s too much separation of church and state. Some people just do not have reasoning skills and thrive on fear. So apparently it’s okay the have fusion of church and state with some people as long as it’s “their” religion or religious belief system. I asked her well so you want church and state to be the same but what if it’s not what you believe that becomes the “official religion” She had no answer for that.

          • smvaughn says:

            “This is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

            So do you believe that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional as well? I’m asking earnestly, not rhetorically. If DOMA is ever struck down as violative of the 5th amendment, the result is that state SSM bans will also be struck down under the 14th amendment.

            • John Konop says:

              Yes, the 14th is also about the Bill of Rights as well. This is a slippery slope if we do not protect the rights of individuals……….As I have said numerous times on this blog what would stop a state from banning people that got divorced from re-marrying via biblical principles.

              …………The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

              ………At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that “no State É shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person É the equal protection of the laws.”
              Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis…….

              http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

              • Blake says:

                The funny thing, of course, is that Subnuke98 was reasoning only from the 10th amendment, not from the 5th & 14th, and thus thinks that Georgia’s definition of marriage is on solid legal ground. We shall see; I doubt it.

  2. GA Constitutionalist says:

    Agree. Regulating marriage is a power that resides with the state under the 9th and 10th Amendments. The people in the sovereign 50 states decide what the customary definition is for marriage. Other states, like Massachusetts, have a different policy than Georgia, and I respect that state’s position. That is the beauty of Federalism.

    Georgia has a right to establish its own standards for sexual conduct. The US Constitution does not give the federal government authority or jurisdiction to overturn state laws that define marriage between one man and one woman. Last I checked, the US Constitution has no provision giving the federal government authority to weigh in on laws regarding marriage or divorce. That is how I read the Constitution and my understanding of Federalism. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Georgia has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. Courts have notoriously refused to adhere to the Constitution and have overstepped their jurisdiction over state matters like this often citing the 14th Amendment to “force the states to be good”.

    The federal courts imposing a redefinition of marriage on the states by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex unions, to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation. This is not Federalism and this was not the intent of the Founders.

    • John Konop says:

      I guess you forgot about this…………….BTW the Bill of Rights concept was big factor………….Do you think it would be constitutional for a state to apply DOMA type law to a divorce, which would ban people from re-marrying unless it met biblical standards? You know the Bible has way more about divorce than gay people.

      …….No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]……….

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

  3. Calypso says:

    Why can’t the same reasoning which applied to Loving v. Virginia be used against DOMA?

    I am not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, hence my question to you barristers out there.

    • Loving v. Virginia is often used by those that support same-sex marriages and/or civil unions. I am also not a lawyer, but I would hinder an educated guess that the ruling was too narrow to be applied to same sex marriages or unions. The ruling states:

      “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

      I think that some of the same arguments presented in Loving v. Virginia could be made in a new case, though. My gut says that unless civil unions are permitted, we may see that the Supreme Court may ultimately rule for same-sex marriages.

      • Calypso says:

        As far as I’m concerned, the term ‘civil union’ should be applied to the legal recognition of a couple, be they homo- or heterosexual in nature.

        ‘Marriage’ should be used as a recognition in a religious connotation for either a homo- or heterosexual couple, providing the overseeing religious institution recognizes such a ‘marriage’.

  4. drjay says:

    how are other state defined marriage issues dealt with when crossing state lines? for instance in dc you cannot marry under the age of 16, in kansas you can marry at 15. is a legally married kansans marriage recognized by the district of columbia? first cousin marriage is allowed in many, but not all states…if billy bob moves to delaware is his cousin still his wife? i would think this would have a bearing on the issue of same sex marriage…

    • Calypso says:

      Good questions.

      A totally different topic, though germane this issue of inter-state recognition of another state’s laws, is something like concealed-carry permits. Some states have reciprocity with others. Some do not. How would that fit into the concept we are discussing here?

    • smvaughn says:

      If a couple gets married in state A then moves to state B, as a general proposition state B will recognize the marriage unless the marriage violates some law or public policy of the state. So the answer in each case depends upon the laws enacted by state B. Since most states have laws stating that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, most states won’t recognize SSM marriages in other states.

      • Calypso says:

        But wouldn’t the age and/or familial issues drjay mentions ‘violate some law…of the [other] state.”? Why would those differences in law be overlooked and SS marriages be unrecognized? (SSM marriages, as you put is redundant. It would be SS marriages.)

        • smvaughn says:

          “Why would those differences in law be overlooked and SS marriages be unrecognized?”

          Not sure I follow you. “Those differences” are only overlooked if they don’t violate a public policy of the state B. This is true for related marriages, underage marriages, and SSM.

      • drjay says:

        right, a state like ohio does not allow first cousin marriages–of course here in ga we do. assuming that is “the law” in ohio…what happens to billy bob’s marriage to betty bob if he moves to dayton?

        • John Konop says:

          FYI

          State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins

          Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal.

          http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx

        • smvaughn says:

          It depends on what the law of Ohio says. If it clearly says “we do not recognize marriage between first cousins, regardless of whether that marriage occurred inside or outside of Ohio,” then Ohio will probably not recognize the marriage.

          I don’t know what Ohio law says on the matter, but as the law becomes less clear then the result becomes less certain. For example, say Ohio law just says, “no marriage between first cousins shall be valid.” It’s unclear whether this language is meant to apply only to marriages that occur in Ohio, or whether it’s also meant to mean that Ohio won’t recognize marriages b/w first cousins from other states. Some courts might construe this language to mean that Ohio just won’t allow such marriages to occur within its boundaries, but that it will recognize them. Other courts might construe it conversely.

    • >>>>how are other state defined marriage issues dealt with when crossing state lines?

      The sovereign status of the individual states allows for diversity in laws and policies. This was the intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution. The concept of “moving to a state that is more in line with your values” is one of the great benefits of our federal republic. The problem arises when objections are made concerning the diversity of laws between the different states and when the federal government passe laws to make us all the same.

      A question: If CA or NJ had laws friendly to gay marriage, and TN or NC didn’t, isn’t it a better option to move to CA or NJ then to have no where to go because the federal government mandated gay marriage illegal across all 50 states?

      The same concept applies for any law. If the gun laws in your state are not to your liking, you are FREE to move to another that has better guns laws in your opinion. But if the national government decides to outlaw guns totally, what options do you have then? The only one would be to leave the country altogether or live defenseless, relying on the good work of your national government.

      I agree with all who say DOMA is unconstitutional, because it is. Nowhere is it enumerated in the Constitution as a power granted by the states to the newly created federal government to dictate what marriage is, or should be.

      Lou Riccio
      State Coordinator Georgia Tenth Amendment Center

  5. smvaughn says:

    “Why can’t the same reasoning which applied to Loving v. Virginia be used against DOMA?”

    It can be. Earlier this year the First Circuit struck down section 3 of DOMA (which defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman) on equal protection grounds (the same concept used in Loving v. Virginia).

  6. Mid Georgia Retiree says:

    “An unfortunate turn of events in recent GOP primaries is that when a race is close, divisive social issues often trump the issues on which that elected official will likely be able to impact through their votes. Policy is thrown out the window in lieu of establishing holier than thou ground on the issues of gay rights, stopping illegal immigration, or halting the spread of shria law which many seem to think is ruining their everyday life. Campaigns that should be about visions of the future are reduced to preying on root fears of often mythical problems. Such is the current state of the race in Georgia 9.”
    Charlie, you are so right, as evidenced by the debate between bloggers in this thread!!!

  7. Jackster says:

    I’m pretty sure we’ve moved beyond the discussion here.

    Is it just me, or would this new message from the campaigns come from a political consultant / Strategist, than the candidate themselves?

    if that’s the case, are there other strategist / consultant types on here who would have gone a different direction? I have to say it seems that neither campaign has spent very much time establishing connections in their districts if they aren’t willing to break from the generic play book.

    • Jackster says:

      2nd paragraph, except after I’ve edited it:

      if that’s the case, are there other strategist / consultant types on here who would have gone a different direction? I have to say it seems that neither campaign hasn’t spent very much time establishing connections in their districts if they aren’t willing to break from the generic play book.

        • Calypso says:

          If only someone, somewhere, somehow, at sometime in the near future would invent a FREAKING MODIFY FEATURE which we might be able to use on this site. But alas, I fear that technology is too sophisticated, complex, and expensive to be had on such a basic website as PeachPundit.

          • SallyForth says:

            Does it have to be Charlie, Ed or one of the other blog moderators to contact WordPress about this malfunction, or can any of the users/posters file a request W/P fix that feature like we used to have here?

            • Jackster says:

              IT’s not broken, it’s disabled. And probably because they don’t have the ability to log changes to original posts, which is why i would disable it.

    • Jackster says:

      So, there are no political operatives on here who would have gone a different direction? If thats the case, I think Charlie’s article is more about the consultant’s disgrace than the candidates.

      • Charlie says:

        At the end of the day, this is about the voters. The candidates are responsible for their campaigns. The consultants are paid to win. They do what they know will work on behalf of the candidates. The candidate is ultimately responsible for high road or low road. The consultant is responsible for win or lose strategy. The voters, at the end of day, are responsible for who governs us.

        The consultants do this because it works.

  8. Stefan says:

    Honestly, I am not going to read your entire comment GA Constitutionalist, but I got this far:

    “Georgia has a right to establish its own standards for sexual conduct.”
    Wrong, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

    “The US Constitution does not give the federal government authority or jurisdiction to overturn state laws that define marriage between one man and one woman.”
    Wrong, Marbury v. Madison

    “Last I checked, the US Constitution has no provision giving the federal government authority to weigh in on laws regarding marriage or divorce.”
    I don’t know when you last checked, but its wrong now. Turner v Safley (1987), you know, because of the liberty interest of the due process clause (5th and 14th)?

  9. seenbetrdayz says:

    I think it’s kind of insulting that the government is even involved in marriage. I know plenty of people who are perfectly capable of ruining a marriage without the government’s help.

  10. debbie0040 says:

    Let the robo calls begin..
    Sadie Fields backs Martha Zoller for Congress!

    “Martha’s conservative position on important issues is not just rhetoric, but a part of her belief system. More than ever, we need conservative leaders who will stand firm on the principles espoused by our Founding Fathers. Martha will do just that and will work hard and tirelessly to help get this country back on track. I endorse her candidacy wholeheartedly and without reservation. Martha Zoller will represent the 9th District of Georgia well and with distinction.”

  11. Romegaguy says:

    saying that Martha is leading in a recent poll would be like saying Maria Sheffield was going to win the 12th Congressional District Race because she was endorsed by her campaign manager’s husband’s blog

  12. Harry says:

    I am prepared to argue against civil unions. Aside from the issue of what are acceptable societal norms and objectives in terms of reproduction, I maintain that civil unions would result in mandated insurance benefits to the same-sex spouses, which would raise insurance rates. This is because homosexuals have much shorter lifespans and the lifestyle is generally more promiscuous and destructive, physically and emotionally – which results in a far higher incidence of insurance claims. Georgia doesn’t need this.

    • Calypso says:

      “Aside from the issue of what are acceptable societal norms…”

      Harry, homosexuality is normal behavior for homosexuals, just as your sexual behavior is normal behavior for heterosexuals (forgive me if I’ve made too much of an assumption regarding your sexual behavior).

      With a 50% divorce rate amongst heterosexual marriages you’re worried about promiscuity and destructive behavior by homosexual married couples? I think you need to let your homophobia subside and let folks in love get married. It’s the right thing to do.

    • bruhsam says:

      Facts.

      Facts are such wonderful things and I see a dearth of them here.

      Harry, please cite your sources. If any of your assertions here are true, I’d love to read the studies.

  13. Calypso says:

    “Aside from the issue of what are acceptable societal norms…”

    Harry, homosexuality is normal behavior for homosexuals, just as your sexual behavior is normal behavior for heterosexuals (forgive me if I’ve made too much of an assumption regarding your sexual behavior).

    With a 50% divorce rate amongst heterosexual marriages you’re worried about promiscuity and destructive behavior by homosexual married couples? I think you need to let your homophobia subside and let folks in love get married. It’s the right thing to do.

    • Calypso says:

      Sorry about the double post, but I wanted to get this directly under Harry’s comment before others piled on. If only we had some sort of MODIFY feature on this website. Perhaps technology will advance at that stage to allow such.

    • saltycracker says:

      C,
      I usually agree with you but “normal” ? Homosexuality may be acceptable sexual behavior but it is aberrant sexual behavior by definiton.

      • Calypso says:

        salty,

        Of course homosexuality is normal behavior, for homosexuals. Conversely, as a heterosexual, if I had sex with another man it would be abnormal behavior for me, as would it be for a homosexual man to have sex with a woman (or reverse the genders for lesbians). There is nothing aberrant about it. How could you see it otherwise?

        • saltycracker says:

          Because you cannot define your own terms. Pedophiles having sex with children is “normal” for them but it is aberrant behavior and society, well most of them, also find it criminal.

          Laws define acceptable in the secular/community world, culture and religion define acceptable in personal behavior.

          • saltycracker says:

            to make it easy – google aberrant sexuality – not going right or wrong here – that is another discussion – just trying to get a common language as needed for any discussion…..sex/male/female/sperm/egg…..lots of fun available doing aberrant sexual male/female stuff

            • Blake says:

              I Googled “aberrant sexuality” and did not find consistent definitions. I don’t think it is a useful phrase.

              Homosexual behavior is a minority of all human sexual behavior, but it appears to be perfectly natural; and of course the law on this point is in flux, and it will depend which culture or religion one picks as to whether it is considered acceptable.

          • heroV says:

            However, a child does not have the ability to consent. Loving, homosexual relationships between consenting adults are completely different. Nice strawman, however. Does make you any less wrong.

  14. saltycracker says:

    Well I never got past early posters throwing individualism in a discussion on defining marriage…..last time I tried gthat, I learned about celibacy….

    If we redefine marriage becuase we’ve determined the old male/female definition not so good, and we gonna expand it to whatever, then let’s dissolve spousal rights for all future marriages and stick to individualism & legal contracts. Imagine the taxpayer consequences for not doing so could get ugly.

    • Harry says:

      That’s a good thought, except that we already are having serious societal, demographic, and economic issues due to non-encouragement and breakdown of traditional marriage at all levels.

      • Calypso says:

        True, and to blame any of those ills on same-sex marriage is a red herring (I’m not saying that you are doing that, Harry, but many others do).

        • Harry says:

          I’m not “blaming” homosexuals as individuals but let’s not glamorize or codify the lifestyle. There are no permanent societal benefits, other than trivial, that I can see. Sure they can be gay – nobody in mainstream culture is stopping them anymore.

          • John Konop says:

            Harry,

            In all due respect science has discovered a gay gene. Would that make it genetic, not asocial, on a macro for gay people? If it is genetic, and gay people are not breaking any laws, why would we have different rules for marriage? When I was single I just looked at it as less competition, but as a businessman, I am always looking for a market edge.

            • dorian says:

              If there is justification for same sex marriages, then there is the same justification for cousins marrying or siblings marrying or even a parent and an adult child. While the latter may be sick and creepy, there is no real difference. Marriage will change from being something precise to a word like “furniture.” It could be a table, or a chair, or whatever, instead of something specific.

              • Jackster says:

                Dorian…
                I’m pretty sure the straight non kin folks have already diminished the definition as your perfectly cromulent post describes.

                Marriage shouldn’t need a qualifier. Marriage to your point should be precise in the sense that two people are married, regardless of gender.

                Once you move past that basic definition, then you start to have to qualify each and every statement you make, which actually is where the political correctness and hate comes into play.

              • smvaughn says:

                “If there is justification for same sex marriages, then there is the same justification for cousins marrying or siblings marrying or even a parent and an adult child.”

                Uh, no. Not at all.

                People are born gay. But people are not born as polygamists. Nor or they born as “incestors” (to make up a word). Government sanctioned discrimination based upon immutable characteristics is, and should be, more suspect than discrimination based upon mutable ones. Not only is incest not an immutable characteristic, but it also has real-world harms — genetic mutations — which justify government involvement.

            • dorian says:

              Thanks, but I’m not particularly inclined to go to wikipedia as my source for rhetorical devices. Moreover, there are plenty of immutable characteristics that certain individuals have that we actually criminalize. For example, the predisposition toward pedophilia. Before I’m burned in effigy, I’m not characterizing homosexuals as pedophiles, they aren’t, but there does have to be an additional level of scrutiny beyond the immutability argument.

              Jackster, I’ve never heard of anyone fixing something that is broken by breaking it more. You can start sitting on the floor and calling it a chair, but it isn’t and never will be.

              • bruhsam says:

                Dorian, I wasn’t replying to you, I was replying to Harry: ” There are no permanent societal benefits, other than trivial, that I can see,” is almost the textbook example of an argument from incredulity.

                And throwing out wikipedia as a source of knowledge is just plain silly nowadays. Sure, you have to watch out for incorrect information, but it’s often a good starting point.

    • Harry says:

      One reason is: to get spousal benefits, tax benefits, and other legal benefits.

      I grant you many homosexuals feel they should be accorded the same rights as heterosexual marrieds. However, the basic purpose of marriage is to provide a stable platform in order to reproduce and raise children. Although I am aware of a couple of long-term homosexual relationships, including one where they’ve adopted – for the most part the lifestyle is promiscuous and is not conducive to long-term, stable relationships and raising of children, and as well there are health issues. Now, you may say I’m biased and not supported by academic studies, but ask yourself why is not more open research being funded in this area? Why is there not a more open discussion in academia and the general public?

      • Happy Face says:

        Sigh. I’ll be so glad when we rid the party of you theocrats and are able to return focus to financial matters. All this gay hate provides nice cover for those who give lip service to financial matters but continue to spend like a drunken Democrat with daddy’s credit card.

      • Jackster says:

        Harry, I’m glad to see you engaging in an effort to define the problem. It’s very refreshing.

        So to your points:

        1) I think we need to agree that any couple wishing to engage in a monogomous relationship is willing to give up promescuity. For this reason, I don’t really think it’s valid here. What you’re suggesting is that two people (regardless of sex) get married, and then continue in a polyamorous relationship.

        I don’t think that’s what you are getting at, but I feel we need to agree that marraige would be monogomous. If you can agre eon that, then we can settle particulars on promiscuity.

        2) There are plenty of orphans needing a family. Plenty of fertility clinics who would love to impregnate a surrogate, and plenty of gay women who can visit a sperm bank.

        To your point – marraige is suppose to create a family unit. When a divorce happens, that unit is broken. Gay folks are perfectly capable of providing and nurturing a family. I don’t understand why having two dads is better than having none (in the case of an orphan or single mom)

        3) Health issues – Sure there are health issues, but what family doesn’t have health issues. I myself am prone to cancer, high blood pressure, stroke, gambling, alcholism, and foul language. If you have a disease, your family supports you.

        Either way, gay people get married because they want to start a family with the one they love… so when did that become an issue for the state to decide?

  15. Technocrat says:

    HIV [1.5M], HPV, and Hep C [2.5 M] has changed the landscape.
    Men worry about who they can depend to take care of them. Women worry about who will love them with serious diseases.
    A legal union is a bit harder to walk out on. Plus financial benefits.
    Haven’t you ever seen weak animals huddle against danger.

    The biggest lethal problem are the “downlow” bisex males who infect naive unsuspecting girls.
    Finding and getting people on and keeping them on medication before they spread to 10 other people is the challenge.

    • Jackster says:

      I’m pretty sure anyone who gets married these days insists on a full work up before they tie the knot, wouldn’t you agree?

  16. girl with a gun says:

    Doug must have gotten some bad polling news today because he has just released a scare-the-haters -into voting robo call.

  17. Technocrat says:

    Think you might have missed the point both gay parties KNOW each others status thus they want to marry and live together to get the social and economic benefits in helping each other. Disability payments do not decrease like hetero marriages do.

    My 87 year old Dad is on [female] wife number 3 they rarely are simultaneously having surgery and schedule doctor lab visits to fit. Being able to see and drive at night is critical to living at home without a partner.

    For some luckily – animals cannot say ” I do”……………grew up in NGa.

Comments are closed.